The Diablo Canyon Power Plant is located near San Luis Obispo in southern California on the Pacific Coast. The plant has two one thousand one hundred Westinghouse pressurized water nuclear reactors.  Unit One was commissioned in 1985 and Unit Two was commissioned in 1986. The plant is owned and operated by Pacific Gas & Electric. In 2009, PG&E applied for a twenty year extension of the licenses for the reactors.

           The population in the NRC plume exposure pathway zone with a radius of ten miles around the plant contains about twenty six thousand people. The NRC ingestion pathway zone with a radius of fifty miles around the plant contains about four hundred and sixty five thousand people. The NRC estimates that there is a high risk of an earthquake that could damage the plant. The plant was originally designed to withstand a six point seven five earthquake but was upgraded to withstand a seven point five earthquake.

          Construction of the plant began in 1968. By the time the plant was completed in 1973, a new fault had been discovered several miles offshore in the area of the plant. The fault was capable of generating earthquakes beyond the level of quake that the plant had been designed to withstand. New plans were drawn up to upgrade earthquake resistance and the work was carried out. After the changes were made, it was discovered that the plans for hardening in reactors were supposed to be reversed for the second reactor but the second reactor was reinforced exactly as the first had been. This meant that some parts of the second reactor were unnecessarily reinforced but other parts that needed to be reinforced were not reinforced. After consideration, the NRC did not require that the work on the second reactor be redone.

        In 2000, a failed electrical conductor caused a fire that cut off the power to the coolant and water circulating water pumps that are necessary to keep the core from overheating. A safety review by the NRC in 2010 found that the Diablo Canyon plant operated for a year and a half with some important emergency systems disabled because of repairs of valves that “would open fast enough.” The improper repairs led to an even worse situation which was not detected by tests that should have identified the new problems.

       Following the Fukushima disaster, PG&E requested that the NRC suspend the extension of the licenses applied for in 2009 until the company had had the opportunity to conduct more studies on the subject of earthquake and flooding threats.

       At Diablo Canyon, there were design problems, oversight problems, bad repairs, non-functional emergency systems and all these happening in a plant on an ocean coast in an earthquake zone similar to the situation at Fukushima before disaster struck.

Picture from Doc Searls of Santa Barbara, California.

Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on March 27, 2013

Ambient office = .069 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .087 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain = .077 microsieverts per hour

Hass Avacado from grocery store  = .075 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .124 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .104 microsieverts per hour

Japanese prime minister wants safety first before restarting reactors. ajw.asahi.com

IAEA says that Fukushima Reactors 5 and 6 are operational though they still need coolant systems. ajw.asahi.com

Renewable energy providers will have to help bear the cost of new UK nuclear reactors. guardian.co.uk

Dutch Borssele nuclear plant has been approved for an extended license until 2033. cnbc.com

              I have written more than twenty blog posts about radioactive waste. It is one of the most serious problems with uranium mining, processing and power generation. I have covered a lot of different schemes to deal with radioactive waste in other blogs posts. Today, I am going to focus on something called bioremediation.

             “Bioremediation” is a process where micro-organisms or plants remove pollutants through their metabolic processes. Such micro-organisms or plants are called “bioremediators.” Naturally occurring bioremediators may be utilized or either natural or tailored micro-organisms or plants may be added to the polluted area.  In addition, various types of fertilizers can be added to speed up the growth of the bioremediators. “In situ” bioremediation refers to the use of bioremediators where the pollution is located. “Ex situ” bioremediation refers to a process where the polluted material is removed from the original site and the bioremediation takes place somewhere else.

              Heavy metal pollutants can be difficult to remove with micro-organisms but there are some plants that are able to absorb heavy metals and removed them from polluted soil or water. This process is called “phytoremediation”. The plants can be harvested and then burned to further concentrate the heavy metals. The resultant concentrated pollutants can then be disposed of or recycled for industrial use. Phytoremediation is inexpensive, easy to monitor, recovers potential valuable metals and is one of the least harmful methods of bioremediation. On the other hand, phytoremediation is limited to the surface and roots zone of the plants, some metals may leach into the ground water, plant growth may be slow and limited by the toxicity of the metals. Phytomining is the use of phytoremediation for the express purpose of extracting valuable minerals from soil and/or water.

             Uranium contamination of soil and water can be treated with bioremediation. A first step is the use of an anaerobic bacterium, Clostridium, to stabilize uranium in nuclear wastes. Radionuclides are dissolved into solution by the action of enzymes or the production of organic acids by the bacteria. Then the radionuclides in the solution are precipitated by enzymes into stable solid mineral phases. Next the precipitate is treated to extract the radionuclides which can then be recycled or disposed of.

              The State of Colorado has been pressuring Cotter Corporation over pollution at the site of Schwartzwalder uranium mine near Canon City, Colorado. Uranium from the operation has been leaking out of the mine and tainting ground water and nearby creeks which flow into a reservoir that serves the Denver area.  Cotter has decided not to reopen its uranium milling operation at the mine and is going to move forward with a final clean up.

              Cotter is going to mix molasses and alcohol with filtered water pumped from the mine and discharged into Ralston Creek. The water will then be drawn from the creek and injected into the two thousand foot deep mine. Bacteria inside the mine will thrive in the molasses and alcohol mix, consuming the uranium and producing solid particles which will drop to the bottom of the mine. If things go as planned, this water cleaning method will be much cheaper than other possible approaches. And, if it works, the method can be applied to tens of thousands of abandoned polluted mines in the United States.

 

Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on March 26, 2013

Ambient office = .112 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .072 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain = .072 microsieverts per hour

Organic quinoa from grocery store  = .122 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .093 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .077 microsieverts per hour

Britain sets out its plans for a nuclear future. uk.reuters.com

Nuclear waste is a growing headache for South Korea. abcnews.go.com

International sanctions may be speeding Iran’s nuclear advancement. csmonitor.com

Duke Energy tells the NRC that the risk of a Jocassee Dam failure isn’t credible. greenvilleonline.com

              I have written two posts about decommissioning of nuclear reactors. The focus was primarily on the problems in the United States. There are serious concerns that some companies running nuclear reactors do not have enough money set aside for decommissioning. And also that it may be difficult to estimate what such decommissioning wil ultimately cost. These concerns are also being expressed in the European Union with respect to the decommissioning of reactors in member states.

            In 2011, a mandatory European Union Directive called on all member states to “provide a detailed cost estimate of all waste management steps up to disposal, including the associated activities, such as research and development.” In 2013, the European commission issued a report that member states had not provided sufficiently detailed information on their decommissioning plans to satisfy the requirements of the 2011 mandate.

          In addition, the report stated that the member nations were not in compliance with the Euratom Treaty requirements that they notify the Commission about decommissioning plans and efforts. Some of the notifications did not contain information about a fully developed decommissioning plan that was written into law. Such notifications were supposed to contain information about investment projects, amounts invested in funds, plans for dealing with the assets of such funds, how funds were to be managed, etc. The report did not name the countries that were not complying but did say that future notifications required detailed plans and at the very least, drafts of proposed legislation to provide the legal framework for the decommissioning funds.

         Another problem highlighted by the report had to do with oversight for the decommissioning fund. There were some open questions about exactly who would have authority to monitor the funds and their compliance with EU regulations. The importance of having an independent monitoring authority separate from the fund managers was stressed.  The report ended on a positive note saying that most of the member states had set aside adequate money for decommissioning.

          When Bulgaria, Lithuania and Slovakia applied for membership in the European Union, one of the conditions of membership was that old Soviet era nuclear reactors in the three countries had to be shut down. In return for the cost and effort to comply with this condition, the European Union agreed to provide funds for the decommissioning effort. Almost four billion dollars was set aside in the 2007 to 2013 EU budget for this project. Much of the money has been spent but there have been serious cost overruns, and charges of lack of coordination, serious delays, diffused responsibilities, poor priority setting and too much money going to other energy projects unrelated to decommissioning. One big problem is that some of the plants have not been “irreversibly shut down”.

          The European Union has serious financial problems with some of the member states on the verge of bankruptcy and costly bailout plans being discussed. It is no stretch of the imagination to foresee a situation where an EU member state is unable to maintain the decommissioning funds required due to financial crashes. In that case, the EU would have to find the money somewhere else to deal with decommissioning. With the EU itself in danger of financial collapse if member states continue to have serious problems, it is not improbable that the EU would turn to the United States for help. So we may find ourselves in a situation where not only do our own nuclear operators default on decommissioning funds but members of the EU also default and turn to us for help. If the United States is also in serious financial trouble, we may wind up with shuttered and fenced shut down reactors that have not been decommissioned properly and constitute a serious public health problem.

Geiger Counter Readings in Seattle, WA on March 25, 2013

Ambient office = .078 microsieverts per hour

Ambient outside = .068 microsieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain = .079 microsieverts per hour

Kara Kara Orange from grocery store  = .113 microsieverts per hour

Tap water = .085 microsieverts per hour

Filtered water = .062 microsieverts per hour

Jobs openings are being advertised at Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant. fukushimavoice-eng.blogspot.com

Widespread blood testing can inform individuals of their actual radiation exposure in the wake of an accident like the one at Fukushima. forbes.com

China won’t act against a nuclear North Korea. washingtonpost.com

The latest aerial survey of the Fukushima region reveals a pattern of contamination significantly reduced in the space of a year by natural processes of radioactive decay and dispersal. world-nuclear-news.org

             I recently read an article in Forbes about nuclear energy and fear. Imagine There’s No Fear — Why We Are So Afraid of Nuclear. The writer spends a lot of time talking about ideas and culture. He suggests that the question of why people fear nuclear energy and radiation is complicated and bound up in a lot of cultural issues. He says that the idea of power and who wields it is part of the complicated mix and that nuclear energy linked into a deep cultural concern with the struggle between good and evil. According to the author, the idea that dangerous weapons that could rain death down on millions and the strategy of mutually assured destruction as a deterrent existed before nuclear weapons but nuclear weapons became the ultimate embodiment of these ideas. Then he says something that I consider to be very stupid “Nuclear will no more easily destroy the world than will coal, or drug-resistant bacteria, or terminator-GMO seeds.”

             I had to read that sentence several times to see if it really was as wrong as it appeared to be on first reading. I hate to contradict a pundit for a prestigious magazine but this statement is just silly. Whether or not his rattling on about memes and the sociology of fear is worth reading is one thing, but this blatant idiocy of this quote is something that I have to challenge. I agree that the three other things that he mentions could cause widespread death and destruction in some circumstances but their threat is tiny compared to the destructive potential of nuclear weapons. A small exchange of a few hundred warheads by Pakistan and India which is a very real possibility could cause a nuclear winter that would effectively destroy human civilization. If the spent fuel pool for Reactor 4 at Fukushima collapses from another earthquake which is a very real possibility, the resultant injection of radioactive materials into the atmosphere will spread around the entire northern hemisphere of the earth and threaten civilization. While there are serious hypothetical threat scenarios that coal, bacteria or GMO seeds could cause much havoc and death, they are nowhere near as possible or likely as nuclear war or nuclear accidents.

              The author then goes on to talk about what a great document the U.S. Constitution is and that it is a great framework for incorporating any new technology into society for the benefit of the people. So the U.S. needs to develop renewable energy sources and other green technologies such as nuclear for a stable and prosperous future. I have already said a great deal about the viability and dangers of nuclear energy in other blogs and I will have more to say in the future. For the moment, I would just like to say that I really resent this cheerleading for the nuclear industry under the guise of a sober assessment of cultural and technological trends. Contrary to the article I am citing, it is very reasonable to fear nuclear energy and to work hard to exclude it from the mix of practical future energy sources. The Forbes article is too long on sociology and psychology and too short on physics and technology to be taken seriously.